Patency of stents covered with polytetrafluoroethylene in patients treated by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: long‐term results of a randomized multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An 80% dysfunction rate at 2 years limits the use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in the treatment of complications of portal hypertension. The use of covered stents could improve shunt patency; however, long-term effect and safety remain unknown. Eighty patients randomized to be treated by TIPS either with a covered stent (Group 1) or an uncovered prosthesis (Group 2) were followed-up for 2 years. Doppler US was performed every 3 months. Angiography and portosystemic pressure gradient measurement were performed every 6 months or whenever dysfunction was suspected. Actuarial rates of primary patency in Groups 1 and 2 were 76% and 36% respectively (P=0.001). Clinical relapse occurred in four patients (10%) in Group 1 and 12 (29%) in Group 2 (P<0.05). Actuarial rates of being free of encephalopathy were 67% in Group 1 and 51% in Group 2 (P<0.05). Probability of survival was 58% and 45% at 2 years, respectively, in Groups 1 and 2 (NS). The mean Child-Pugh score improved only in Group 1 (from 8.1+/-1.6 to 7+/-2.2 at 2 years -P<0.05). We also compared the Doppler-US parameters between patent and dysfunctioning shunts. In patent shunts, the mean velocity within the portal vein was significantly higher but the performance of Doppler-US was not accurate enough to predict shunt dysfunction. In conclusion, the improvement in TIPS patency by using covered prostheses is maintained over time with a decreased risk of encephalopathy, while the risk of death was not increased.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".